Pity, Pretext, and Prerogatives

America is a nation of immigrants. Our country is probably one of the most tolerant – racially, religiously, and culturally – of any nation in the world. Our legal system reinforces this tolerance with laws against discrimination of all sorts, and the worst epitaph that can be meted out is calling someone a racist or a bigot. This is America, after all.

So how does the author justify making accusations about the Islamists? Why have they become the exception to America’s general tolerance of just about all life-styles, cultures, and racial backgrounds? The answer to these questions can be found in the answer to another, more general question: Is there any other religious/cultural/political group in the U.S. today that is more intolerant on the whole than the Islamists and those who emulate them? Islamic ideology divides mankind into Muslims and kufur (infidels) and treats them differently – both legally and socially. Islamic ideology segregates women from men and forces women to wear distinctive clothing to show their rejection of non-Muslim clothing and apparel. Sharia Law states that imitating non-Muslims is an act of apostasy. (Reliance of the Traveler, para. e4.1(2)) Islamic ideology insists on special halal food which can only be prepared by Muslims. Muslims even refuse to pray in English, the American national language. Americans’ tolerance of Islamic intolerance out of our embrace of multicultural acceptance will lead to the disintegration of our civilization and our heritage, as is happening today in parts of Europe.

In Los Angeles where I live we have Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Copts, Jews and even Communists. Their religious worship is a personal and private matter. In public, you can rarely tell what ideology they follow. They do not have special liaison offices with law enforcement, they generally do not form “religious” Political Action Committees, they do mass together to pray in the streets, and they do not form “flash mobs” of protesters every time there is an apparent slight to their communities. The Islamists do. The Islamists themselves have made themselves exceptional – in all the wrong ways.

Three Watershed Events in Islamic History

The three most defining events in the history of Islam’s origin, as recorded by Muslim historians, are 1) the emigration (hijra) of the first Muslims from Mecca to Medina, 2) the Islamic ideology which was developed to justify aggression against non-Muslims, and 3) the Islamic purging the Arabian peninsula of all other religions. Non-Muslims need to understand these seminal events so they can recognize how Islamic intolerance today stems from these events.

Refusal to assimilate -- Muhammad preached his new Islamic religion in Mecca for 13 years, but gained only 150 or so converts. They railed against the other religions of the community to the point that the Muslims were driven out in 624 A.D. Muslim historian ibn Ishaq reported, “[The people of Mecca] became distressed by the trouble caused by the enmity between them and the apostle [Muhammad] and those who accepted his teaching. . . . They said that they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow; he had declared their mode of life foolish insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community, and cursed their gods.” [The Life of Muhammad, para. 183] Muslims immigrants today refuse to assimilate into their new host countries, rarely mix socially with non-Muslim, and they insist on wearing distinctive dress to signal their rejection of the local customs.

Justification for violence against non-Muslims -- As immigrants to Medina, the small band of Muslims was hard-pressed for income. They decided to raid passing caravans for booty, but their first raid happened during the “sacred month” of pilgrimage when all aggression and robbery were forbidden (as a way of encouraging the lucrative pilgrim trade in the region). The surprise raid resulted in the death of one pilgrim and the capture of two others along with their possessions. When the raiders brought to Muhammad his 20% share of the booty, he said, “I did not order you to fight in the sacred month,” and he refused the spoils. This incident caused a great scandal among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. That night, however, Muhammad received a new verse for the Quran, Surah 2:217, a revelation which justified the raid: “They ask you concerning the sacred month and fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter.” (See Ibn Ishaq, para. 426) Of course, the caravan of pilgrims was doing nothing to hinder Muslims or persecute them. This pretext for killing and robbing became the institutionalized Islamic justification for all aggression against non-Muslims. Today, Islamists urge their followers to take firm action against any slight to their Prophet or their religious sensibilities.

Intolerance of other religions -- When Muhammad and his followers arrived in Medina, there were five tribes in the town – 2 Arab and 3 Jewish. Because of the fighting and friction among the tribes (particularly between the Arab tribes), Muhammad was called to Medina (originally called Yathrib) to resolve the differences. He had already indicated his opposition to the Jews prior to arriving in Medina, and his twelve co-leaders were chosen only from the non-Jewish tribes. (Ishaq, para. 297) Muhammad’s solution to the community problems was to systematically, one-by-one, drive the Jewish tribes from Medina on various trumped-up charges. Six to nine hundred men in the banu Qurayza tribe were actually beheaded in the Medina market square. (Ishaq, para. 690) On his deathbed, Muhammad’s final request was, “Let not two religions be left in the Arabian peninsula.” (Ibn Ishaq, para. 1023) Fourteen hundred years later there is still no church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia, despite the presence of over a million Christian immigrant workers living in the country.

Those three events in Islamic history are not just anecdotal: They constitute the basis for Islamic intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims. The Islamic code of ethics is based solely on emulating Muhammad’s actions and his decrees through the Quran. He told his followers, “If I forbid you to do something, then keep away from it. And if I order you to do something, then do it as much as you can.” (Sahih hadith of Bukhari, No. 9:391)

The Islamist Pity Party

Psychologists who have studied Muhammad’s biography have concluded that he was a sociopath who suffered from complex partial seizures and had a narcissistic personality disorder – a person who had no empathy for the feelings of others. (See Dede Korkut, “The Medical Case of Muhammad,” and Ali Sina, “Understanding Muhammad – a Psychobiography.”) After Muhammad ordered the assassination of critic Asma daughter of Marwan who had five sons and was stabbed to death in her sleep, he was asked if he would bear any evil consequences. Muhammad replied, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her.” (Ibn Ishaq, para. 996) In her book, “The Sociopath Next Door,” Psychologist Martha Stout observes that what sociopaths crave most is for people to feel sorry for them. (page 107) Pity from good people absolves the sociopath of any wrongdoing.

How do Islamists play the pity card?

“Islamophobia is Racism” -- The Islamists’ most egregious pity ploy is to equate opposition to Islamist ideology with racism. Here is their convoluted logic: They argue that the race and ethnicity-based racism of the 19th Century has been replaced by culture-based racism in the 20th Century. So opposing Islam is racism. The flaw in this logic is that true, biological racism is abhorrent because people cannot change their biological background. A person’s culture, on the other hand, is a personal choice. The old expression, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” still applies. So the Islamist pity party makes their refusal to assimilate into a racial trait, and instead of being seen for what they are – intransigent --, they become the “victims” of racism. There is no “Muslim race,” as people of all nationalities and races call themselves Muslims.

The term “Islamophobia” was introduced to the present-day discourse in the 1990’s by the U.S. organization, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, as a way of making Muslims into victims of an irrational phobia against them. In their view, any concerns against the ideology that inspired some Muslims to perpetrate massive terror attacks against Americans (1993 and 2001), Spanish (2004) , British (2005), Indians (2008), and Nigerians (2012) could not be rational or fact-based according to the Islamists, and so Muslims have been maliciously demonized and victimized by this irrational fear.

“Muslims are the victims of the 9/11/01 attack on New York and Washington” -- The American Muslim Political Action Committee has announced a “Million Muslim American March Against Fear” to Washington, D.C., this coming September 11 to draw attention to the Muslim “victimization” by the Islamist terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, resulting in over 3,000 innocent American deaths. On the anniversary which should provoke shame and apologies, Muslims exploiting the date to demand their own version of “social justice” (i.e., Sharia Law) from U.S. government leaders. So far, the response to this march has been underwhelming.

Using Human Shields to Evoke Pity -- Nothing is more offensive to public sensitivities than the death of innocent civilians in military attacks. In most conflicts extra care is taken to make sure that civilians are removed from the battlefield, but with regard to Islamists, the opposite is usually the case. In the Palestinian Second Intifada, human shields were used to prevent Israeli attacks or at least to increase the number of civilian casualties if attacks occurred. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p01s02-wome.html ) Terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan surround themselves with women and children to maximize the public outcry against drone attacks (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1894370,00.html?xid=rss-topstories ). And with regard to the recent violence in Egypt, women and children were deliberately brought to the battle lines to help protect them from military attack. (http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-egypt-human-shields-20130802,0,6718041.story ) By increasing the outcry over “innocent, non-combatant casualties,” the goals of the Islamists are often achieved despite their political or military weaknesses.

Pretext – what doesn’t offend Muslims?

Islamists consider any opposition to Islam as an affront to them and to their god, Allah. They claim that the 26 raids or battles Muhammad fought in during the last 10 years of his rule were all “defensive” battles. While the Battle of the Trench, where the forces of Mecca tried to wipe out Muhammad and his followers for good, was clearly a defensive engagement, none of the other battles even came close. Here is a summary of his first major engagement against Christians from Ibn Ishaq: In 630 A.D., Muhammad mustered an army of 12,000 men and marched 275 miles from Medina to Taif, which had a Christian Byzantine garrison there. This was an unprovoked surprise attack, and the Muslims besieged the garrison for 20 days. As it turned out, Taif sustained the siege, so Mohammad and his men cut down all of the vineyards and went elsewhere to capture booty. (Ibn Ishaq, pare 870ff) The only “pretext” for this aggression was a rumor that the Byzantines were planning to attack Muhammad.

Often, the pretext for Islamist outrage is quite flimsy. In 2005, a spread of 12 cartoons about Muhammad drawn in a Danish newspaper threw Muslims into such an outrage that some 200 people died and millions of dollars of property was destroyed in the ensuing violence. It turns out that the truly insulting cartoons were “inserted” into the cartoon portfolio five months later by Islamists themselves to agitate the masses. ( http://www.investigativeproject.org/337/fabricated-cartoons-worsened-danish-controversy )

Apparently non-Muslims exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of the press constitute one of the greatest threats to the Islamists. The following list shows some of the incidents that provoked street demonstrations, lawsuits, and even assassinations:

In this week’s conflict in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has falsely blamed the Christians for the ouster of Mohammed Morsi. As a result, in just 24 hours some 53 churches were torched, in addition to Christian businesses, schools, and cultural centers. Christians make up only about 10 percent of the Egyptian population, and they were not involved in the overthrow of Morsi which was ordered by the military.

There are so many things that offend the Islamists, it would be hard to compile a comprehensive list. In just the past two months, the Malaysian government has jailed three people for “disrespecting Muslim sensitivities.” One Muslim woman was charged with disrespecting Muslim sensitivities by celebrating the end of the Muslim fasting month with her dogs, which Muslims consider unclean. In the most recent case, a hotel owner was punished for allowing Buddhists to use an “Islamic” prayer room. Those charged face up to eight years in prison if convicted. (See http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/08/17/2711249/malaysia-punishes-singaporean.html )

Islamist Prerogatives to Ensure Special Treatment

Islamists insist that they are merely exercising their First Amendment right to practice their religion when they insist on numerous prerogatives that have nothing to do with the mosque or religious worship. In order to carve out their own special turf, the Islamists are mindful of the provision in Sharia Law which states, “. . it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings.” (Reliance of the Traveler, para. w43.5(c)) Note in the foregoing statement that religion isn’t even mentioned. Non-Muslim politicians who have only a cursory understanding of Islam often cave in to those demands when, in fact, those requirements aren’t even mandated by Islam in the first place. They are, instead, political demands that either ensure favorable treatment for Muslims or help to separate Muslims from the non-Muslims for whom the Islamists have shown contempt since the beginning of Islam. The following is a list of special prerogatives that Islamists have weaseled out of politicians and employers across the United States. After each special privilege is the Sharia Law exception that makes those requirements optional for Muslims. Politicians are being duped.

Face-veils for women – Looking at a woman is permissible for testimony in court, for commercial dealings, and so forth, in which cases looking is permissible to the degree required. (Reliance of the Traveler, para. m2.11)

Exemption from sterilizing between patients for nurses – Same exemption applies.

Footbaths for ablutions prior to prayer – When one lacks both water and earth, one is obliged to pray the obligatory prayer by itself, and later make up the prayer when one again find water or finds earth, if in a place where dry ablution suffices as purification for prayer that need not be made up later. (R of T, para. e12.15)

Halal meat -- “Say: ‘I find nothing in what has been revealed to me that forbids men to eat of any food except carrion, running blood, and the flesh of swine – for these are unclean – and any flesh that has been profanely consecrated to gods other than Allah. But whoever is constrained, intending neither to sin nor to transgress, will find your Lord forgiving and merciful.’” (Quran, Surah 6:145)

Work breaks for prayers -- A Muslim may postpone one or more of his/her five required daily prayers and join it to another prayer for many reasons, including travel and rain. The Hanbali (Wahhabi) School of Sharia Law also allows this for “someone who fears for himself, his property, or his reputation, or who fears harm in earning his living if he does not join prayers; the latter is giving leeway to works for whom it is impossible to leave their work.” (R of T, para. f15:18(5))

Separate burial grounds for Muslims – Islamic scholars agree that there is no problem with burying Muslims in non-Muslim cemeteries, because the primary considerations are respect for the deceased and proximity to the survivors so they can visit the grave. “Land does not sanctify anybody, but a person’s own deeds sanctify him.” (mentioned by Malik in al-Muwatta, No. 2232)

When people are engaging in a con game, the best way to break the cycle is to expose the con. Non-Muslims are being “worked” by Islamists to their advantage. We should call their game, and insist on a level playing field for all people regardless of religion, race, or culture. No false pity, no invented pretexts, and no extraordinary prerogatives. After all, this is America.

Disclaimer: The articles published on this site represent the view of their writers.